Evolution is still considered sound science despite its many shortcomings

>evolution is still considered sound science despite its many shortcomings
How do you justify the amount of ad-hoc and bias present in this supposedly scientific discipline?

Other urls found in this thread:

answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/ape-man/did-humans-really-evolve-from-apelike-creatures/
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC030.html
news.softpedia.com/news/New-Early-Hominid-Species-Discovered-with-the-Aid-of-Google-Earth-139437.shtml
evolutionnews.org/2012/07/a_just-so_story_1/
answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fossil-evidence-of-whale-evolution/
icr.org/article/vital-function-found-for-whale-leg/
answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/homo-habilis-homo-rudolfensis-and-australopithecus-sediba/
answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/homo-habilis-homo-rudolfensis-australopithecus-sediba-discussion/
coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/44
answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/homo-naledi-not-part-of-human-holobaramin/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

Because homologus structures across different forms of life alone are enough evidence to suggest evolution.

lmftfy

>literally believing in magic
Back to your containment board

That picture gave me aids

Thanks OP

The evolutionary tree is fucking retarded. It has to be a DAG like everything else in life.

Nice ad-hom

By that same logic, cars, bridges, and various household appliances evolved.

...

...

Go get a brain tumor.
Now that, that is some intelligent design.

Geologist here, yes paleontology is part of geology and also archeology is somewhat related.

Listen. We have TOO MANY HUMAN FOSSILS. We have so many that the problem is no longer 'where's the missing link' the problem is 'when is the transition from ape ancestor to human'. The sheer volume of skeletons we have is astonishing and each new find makes us say 'well, is this one more like modern humans or more like Homo erectus?' when exactly do we draw the line?

So any argument you make better fit the evidence.

answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/ape-man/did-humans-really-evolve-from-apelike-creatures/

>answersingenesis

>How do you justify the amount of ad-hoc and bias present in this supposedly scientific discipline?

because as a model, evolution is pretty useful for making predictions. the entire oil/gas/mineral industry wouldn't work without relative dating. relative dating wouldn't work without the assumption that macro evolution is the only explanation for why all species didn't exist on the earth at the same time.

this is one example of evolutions instrumentality. until creationist theory has some sort of industrial application, evolution is the status quo, regardless of the holes you can find in it.

>answersingenesis

Instead of giving any evidence or thoughtful critique you're just posting shitty memes.

Get off Veeky Forums

...

Argument from ridicule

Low quality bait

Saged and reported

>answersingenesis.org

Why would you keep a bait thread going this long when you can just sage it?

>blacks are genetically inferior
>evolution is a lie
pick one faggots

>answersingenesis

Sorry friend. We have THOUSANDS of hominid fossils

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC030.html

That article predates discoveries like this one
news.softpedia.com/news/New-Early-Hominid-Species-Discovered-with-the-Aid-of-Google-Earth-139437.shtml

which uses Google Earth to find thousands more fossil sites. We're just getting started and each time we discover more fossils your argument dies

You posted a source that has had everything it has ever claimed publicly refuted at least twice.
That makes you a retard.

When and where?

clearly biased as fuck

you aren't doing God's work by engaging with people in this way. If anything you are flaunting your religion in public instead of keeping your relationship with God a personal matter as you are instructed. Matthew 6:6 and Matthew 6:1

Was responding to wrong post.
Sorry about that

You just averted the question.

>averted
steered you into the question you should be pondering about your current choice of activity.

Everyone sage and report this thread.
There is way too much shitposting on Veeky Forums

Those verses refer to prayer. Now answer the question.

>implying cars, bridges and various household appliances reproduce and have genes
my friend, please Keep Yourself Safe tonight

>By that same logic, cars, bridges, and various household appliances evolved.
They don't form the same sort of strictly branching tree structure.

3/10 made me pissed off

Evolution has already been proven, moron.

The wisdom tooth, appendix and tail bone is proof of evolution.

Publish your alt. theory that explains current evidence and precits future evidence/experimental results and win the Nibel Prize, but first get off this mongolian throat-singing forum

Actually, there isn't just one correct answer because evolution is a spectrum.

Would you say there are an especially larger amount of "transitional" forms of humans than other animals?

>How do you justify the amount of ad-hoc and bias present in this supposedly scientific discipline?
Post said shortcomings or GTFO. Preferably not well-refuted ones.

Would gladly do so, but the only problem is that the community at larger isn't willing to admit to themselves and the public that they are, in fact, wrong about most of the material presented as evolutionary "fact."

There is man and man alone, nothing in-between the two.

evolutionnews.org/2012/07/a_just-so_story_1/

>evolutionnews.org/2012/07/a_just-so_story_1/
I don't think the author of this article understands what a just-so story is.

If there is a question about how a certain adaptation is compatible with evolution, such as the question "how come prey birds call out in warning despite the risk this causes", a just-so story would be a nice-sounding explanation given in a vacuum, without real ties to other knowledge. As this article correctly points out, just-so stories are a dime a dozen, and you can quite easily invent convincing-sounding explanations for just about everything you come across.

Things are different when your explanations come with *predictions*. When your explanation predicts that certain other things are also true, preferably before having done an experiment to confirm this, then your explanation becomes a bona fide theory. If you then do an experiment and it turns out the things your explanation predicts are in fact true, this supports your explanatory theory. It is not infinite support, of course, but it is genuine support. For example, the "calling out warnings signals the predator that surprise attacks won't work" explanation predicts that prey that calls out warnings are less likely to be captured than prey that do not. If you then go measure this in the field and it turns out to be true, that's a measure of experimental support of your theory.

The explanations for how things evolved that you read about on wikipedia are NOT in fact the first thing someone thought about. They are the explanations that were confirmed after a bunch of research, with several alternatives discarded along the way because they were experimentally DISconfirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

Furthermore, each time a solid and consistent evolutionary explanation for an adaptation is found, this is in turn evidence for the background theory of evolution as a whole, for it is the sort of evidence you are likely to find when evolution is true and unlikely to find if evolution is false; and every time an adaptation is found that stubbornly resists any explanations as to how it can be sustained, this is evidence AGAINST evolution, for the converse reason.

If, over time, we collect literally millions of solid, well-understood, and predictive explanations of how particular features of organisms are generated by the landscape of evolution, this quickly forms a HUGE mountain of evidence in evolution's favor. If there are a handful of cases of adaptations that seem to defy all explanations -- of which I don't know any, but which surely exist -- then this can mean two things: either it means that evolution as we understand it is wrong, or it means that we haven't thought of the explanation YET but it exists anyway.

The size of the two mountains involved are what determines the overall estimate as to which of these two possibilities is most likely. The larger the mountain of evidence in the form of confirmed evolutionary explanations of behaviors, the more likely that we simply didn't think of the right answers for the open questions yet; the larger the collection of open questions, the more likely that there isn't a right answer and evolution is simply wrong.

At that point, it has become a numbers game. The critical numbers here are "literally millions and millions" versus "a couple of handfuls". You would have to talk to a scholar of evolutionary biology (which I am definitely not) for a better estimate of the two sizes of mountain, but a case or two that are real stumpers prove nothing. And an offered case or two that in fact we understand perfectly well, proves the opposite.

Reminder that no organisms have ever been observed to cross a single Taxonomically relevant threshold by anyone and everyone's definitions.

Neither do Animals. The structure you speak of is a construct of the Human Mind that can just as easily be used to arrange appliances or cars in a similar way.

bacteria spontaneously evolved to digest a new chemical, that had never been consumed by that bacteria.

Reminder that taxonomical classes are after-the-fact classifications of organisms observed to exist, not a preexisting scheme that organisms were later slotted into.

>Taxonomically relevant threshold
A literally meaningless phrase.

You understand how unlikely it is for things to fossilize, right? And then how unlikely it is that we'll happen to stumble upon it later on, yeah? That is why there are "gaps". Because fossilization is uncommon.

Reminder that evolutionists tried to make neanderthals into ape-men, despite them being fully human.

>Evolutionists
Literally what? People simply thought neandertals we're hunched over because at the time the best-preserved specimens were old people who had osteoporosis. That was very quickly adjusted as more specimens were found showing the standing upright. Not the physical anthropologists fault the public took the caveman idea and ran with it.

>Fully human
In that they're hominids? Sure. That was never debated. In that they're the same as modern humans? No. Their skull structures were distinctly different with larger cranial capacity and occipital buns, and narrower in general.

Why are you shitposting this bullshit?

...

>What is Antibiotic resistance?

brazilian>turk>syrian>american>pig

I don't disagree. I was saying that assuming Animals came to be by a process of transgenerational metamorphosis simply because their forms make such a process plausible is as good of an idea as assuming that cars came to be by a similar process.

Does that make it a distinct taxon?

Taxonomy is the foundation of Evolution. If you admit the basic criterion in separating one taxon from another is Human agency, then Evolution is fiction through and through.

There is more evidence that asians evolved from insects then this ape ancestor bullshit.

What are those shortcomings btw

>Taxonomy is the foundation of Evolution.
No, it absolutely isn't.

>If you admit the basic criterion in separating one taxon from another is Human agency, then Evolution is fiction through and through.
The cladistic structure is part of natural history. Where in this structure we draw the line of distinct taxons is a semi-arbitrary human classification, just like the question of what is and is not a planet, or the exact boundary between green and blue. If you think this makes evolution a fiction, then clearly you don't understand one bit of the subject.

>plateaus are tree stumps
that sounds cool

Agreed

Aside from excessively good traits that seems to flourish in specific species, evolution is a great theory. Shit pisses me off though, how some species, by nothing more than chance, develop features that are far more useful like the human eye and adaptive camouflage

...

I think you meant hominins (everything after the chimp split).

Cars don't make other cars.

What evidence is there that Asians evolved from insects?

What shortcomings?

Darwin was a real scientist in that his theories were falsifiable and he wanted them to be proven false. It just so happened that predictions based on his hypothesis kept coming true even long after his death.

But science is religion

Show me how life is like Mt. Rushmore.

How do I even read this image?

Baeutifully designed as it is, with very little change observed. People imagine change because they reject a creator.

We have evidence that species have changed over time though. Whales for instance have hind legs that are now atrophied to the point of being inside their body but we can see that they were usable for movement at one point from musculature and fossils of ancient cetaceans. This isn't imagined change, the hind legs and pelvis of whales have become repurposed over time.

>simply because their forms make such a process plausible
Well is not simply because of their forms, so nice strawman.

answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fossil-evidence-of-whale-evolution/

icr.org/article/vital-function-found-for-whale-leg/

...

Results of the fall don't count.

1. display that you understand evolution (I almost guarantee that you don't).
2. tell us of these shortcomings that supposedly discredit that entirety.

So far you've made a poorly-constructed bait thread, nothing more.

college really is stupid though, outside of STEM

>wah science doesn't match my retarded beliefs

So whenever someone destroys your argument, you make up something to try to save it.

There is no intelligent design if that design is destroyed. You have no argument if your argument is destroyed.

...

>I lost the argument so now I'm going to post this shitty irrelevant meme

Your shitty memes are not arguments. Get off Veeky Forums

All I'm saying is that the evidence is ambiguous. It can be used for either argument. You can claim these are "ape-men," while I conclude that they are either within the range of human variation, the result of various diseases and disorders, or apes

>answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fossil-evidence-of-whale-evolution/
>You comment that mutations lead to variants and that conception creates new variation. But mutations only corrupt, delete, duplicate, or move around existing genetic information in the genome of a kind of creature. Mutations do not create new information so as to change, for example, a reptile into a bird or mammal, no matter how many millions of years you allow.
This quote perfectly exemplifies how little the Answers in Genesis people understand anything.

Clearly duplicating, deletion, and moving things around would create new patterns. Oh but wait, they have a qualifier there. Obviously you can get new patterns, but they won't turn a reptile into a bird or mammal. This is one of the most fundamental misunderstandings Creationists have about evolution. The "crocoduck" idea of one extant species turning into another extant species simply does not describe evolution.

Just a reminder that arguing with Christians is NEVER profitable. Creationism appeals to the under-educated, the militant and the mentally ill - no amount of evidence or logic will stop them from spreading their lies, and by responding to them directly you are simply helping them proselytize. In other words...sage....always sage...unless it's to point out the impossibility of real debate.

>while I conclude that they are either within the range of human variation, the result of various diseases and disorders, or apes
Show your work. Which statistical tests did you use? What specimens? What measurements did you take?

> either within the range of human variation or apes
isn't that the point?
that since it's within range of human and ape variation, it shows that there's evolution between kinds?

>You can claim these are "ape-men," while I conclude that they are either within the range of human variation, the result of various diseases and disorders, or apes
You can CLAIM all you like. That doesn't mean your claim has any scientific merit. In particular, it doesn't mean your claim is compatible with the known evidence.

The less evidence you know of constraining claims, the more claims you can make that sound sensible to you, because you don't know any of the reasons why the claims are obvious nonsense. That doesn't mean your claims are sensible to people who DO understand the relevant background.

>American>Jew
Ftfy

answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/homo-habilis-homo-rudolfensis-and-australopithecus-sediba/
answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/homo-habilis-homo-rudolfensis-australopithecus-sediba-discussion/
coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/44
answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/homo-naledi-not-part-of-human-holobaramin/

So are you assert evidence being ambiguous without providing any evidence for this conclusion. For someone who throws logical fallacies around you make quite alot False premises

And what do you think those sources say? Individually, if you would. You can do that while I read these on my own and we can meet back here for drinks.

First one argues that Homo habilis, rudolfensis, and A. Sediba are within the range of human variation, the second discusses why sediba can't be a part of the holobaramin, the next groups naledi into the holobaramin, while the last one rejects that idea.

Yeah thanks, but I mean why do you think those articles support your position?

They come to the conclusion that these are either fully human or fully ape, not intermediary in any way, shape, or form.

And they base this on... what? "Looks like a human to me" or "looks like an ape to me!"

Keep in mind the only part that actually matters to anthropologists is the skull.

>Proof by verbosity

Pretty clever, evangelicals.

Not a single one of those links compares species to the variation in homo sapiens, they merely group species by similarities. There's a word for these groups, "genus."